D&D General The New York Times on D&D

[TiQuinn]

I am not sure it is most, but I take your point. I think the issue is D&D has long catered to both styles of play. So that is often where changes like this can introduce issues. Even in campaigns where you have more nuance, there is often that gauntlet like atmosphere once they are in the bad guys lair kicking butt

My point is while I personal tend to prefer settings with more nuance, I don’t think it’s inherently superior. There are perfectly valid reasons to want an evening of killing monsters

But there’s the rub: none of these changes actually create issues for individual tables. If you want to run orcs as monsters, there is nothing actually stopping you from running orcs as monsters. If someone wants their Dwarven wizard to be hardy and stout at the expense of being smart, as the article suggest, there’s nothing stopping people from making their character that way.

The issue is not that the rules are stopping people from creating characters or campaigns that they want; it’s that they no longer see themselves reflected in these rules. It’s not being a Grognard; it’s being a grumpy old man who doesn’t like that the rules no longer enforce his preference as the default state and others have to change for him - he now must change for others.

 

[Remathilis]

I am just using it as a shorthand example. I am not saying it’s as limited in scope as a mid-80s arcade game. But I think this makes a good example to help explain the kick down the door and kill some orca style of campaign (admittedly Gauntlet may be a pretty dated reference at this point)

I am not sure it is most, but I take your point. I think the issue is D&D has long catered to both styles of play. So that is often where changes like this can introduce issues. Even in campaigns where you have more nuance, there is often that gauntlet like atmosphere once they are in the bad guys lair kicking butt

My point is while I personal tend to prefer settings with more nuance, I don’t think it’s inherently superior. There are perfectly valid reasons to want an evening of killing monsters

I don't have a problem with dungeon crashing play either, but I don't think the current paradigm is actually preventing it either.

A recent example: (mild Wild Beyond the Witchlight spoilers) haregons were first presented in that module in two forms: PC stats and an single encounter with a group of bandits. No one assumes that based on that single example that all haregons are bandits or evil, but the encounter can be played as a traditional bandit fight. Certainly, no one is going to base haregon culture on that single encounter.

Orcs (and goblinoids and others) can fill a similar spot. Orcs can be bandits and cultists and raiders, but a.) they can also be farmers, soldiers and merchants and b.) you fight them because they are bandits, cultists and raiders, not because they're orcs. What I think gets missed is that we're not taking away the option for them to be evil, we're just saying it's not the default status of all orcs. There is nothing from a kick-in-the-door style of play that changes between entering an orc camp and entering an orc bandit camp but the concession that you're fighting them because they are bandits and not orcs.

 

[Hussar]

This argument has been going on in its current iteration for five years or so.

No matter what points are brought forward, how many examples are shown no one has budged an inch.

It’s the same song and dance every time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This argument has been going on in its current iteration for five years or so.

No matter what points are brought forward, how many examples are shown no one has budged an inch.

It’s the same song and dance every time.

But this is always how things are. You generally can’t persuade someone into liking a change you like or disliking a change you dislike. It is a preference thing. It isn’t about who has the better argument, it is about what people want from D&D

 

[Belen]

But there’s the rub: none of these changes actually create issues for individual tables. If you want to run orcs as monsters, there is nothing actually stopping you from running orcs as monsters. If someone wants their Dwarven wizard to be hardy and stout at the expense of being smart, as the article suggest, there’s nothing stopping people from making their character that way.

The issue is not that the rules are stopping people from creating characters or campaigns that they want; it’s that they no longer see themselves reflected in these rules. It’s not being a Grognard; it’s being a grumpy old man who doesn’t like that the rules no longer enforce his preference as the default state and others have to change for him - he now must change for others.

Except that once it is the default assumption, you will have people arguing that you must allow the default assumption.

We have had multiple recent threads where people argued that a DM should not restrict PHB races. They argued that PHB default was the expectation and that a DM must allow it in their game.

5.5 does a lot to try to infer that a good DM follows the RAW in order to be "fair."

I agree with you that it should not restrict individual tables except that you have people arguing that it should.

For me, this is the main argument surrounding default assumptions in the book. The culture used to assume that the core books were strong guidelines but that you should not expect every table to allow every species etc, but there seems to be a shift, and WOTC would like it to happen, towards everyone should be using the baseline defaults because that is how D&D (the brand) should be played.

Basically, as long as you do not mess with my table, I do not care.

 

[Remathilis]

Except that once it is the default assumption, you will have people arguing that you must allow the default assumption.

And that's the Crux of this debate. WotC is going to bless one side of the debate with the aura of authority and both sides want their vision enshrined in the books as the default (preferred?) means of play. We all pay lip service to the idea of house ruling and DMs table, but how many of us would love the PHB to reflect OUR vision of how you game should play, be that with modern storytelling style, OSR sensibility, or something else altogether.

The debate isn't what happens at yours, mine or anyone else's table, it's about having our style reflected back at us when we crack the PHB.

 

[TiQuinn]

Except that once it is the default assumption, you will have people arguing that you must allow the default assumption.

We have had multiple recent threads where people argued that a DM should not restrict PHB races. They argued that PHB default was the expectation and that a DM must allow it in their game.

5.5 does a lot to try to infer that a good DM follows the RAW in order to be "fair."

I agree with you that it should not restrict individual tables except that you have people arguing that it should.

For me, this is the main argument surrounding default assumptions in the book. The culture used to assume that the core books were strong guidelines but that you should not expect every table to allow every species etc, but there seems to be a shift, and WOTC would like it to happen, towards everyone should be using the baseline defaults because that is how D&D (the brand) should be played.

Basically, as long as you do not mess with my table, I do not care.

The one thing that WotC cannot guarantee and can never guarantee is that everyone is going to have the same experience at every table or that every table is right for every person. That message continues through out the hobby. When we talk about Session Zero, inherent in that is setting the ground rules for that particular table, and my session zero is going to differ from another table’s session zero. It is simply the nature of virtually any TTRPG. There will also always be people who are prickly enough to want to insist upon their way, but ultimately the goal is to grow the hobby large enough that they can find their own table that does share their views about how to play the game rather than try to bully others into playing the way they want.

There are venues for RAW, consistent game play whether it is Adventurer’s League or tournament play a la the old RPGA, and they can probably enforce it in whatever online environment Project Sigil ends up being but they’ll also find that without flexibility, there will be people who go elsewhere.

The existence of people who complain does not really change anything.

 

[Belen]

And that's the Crux of this debate. WotC is going to bless one side of the debate with the aura of authority and both sides want their vision enshrined in the books as the default (preferred?) means of play. We all pay lip service to the idea of house ruling and DMs table, but how many of us would love the PHB to reflect OUR vision of how you game should play, be that with modern storytelling style, OSR sensibility, or something else altogether.

The debate isn't what happens at yours, mine or anyone else's table, it's about having our style reflected back at us when we crack the PHB.

The issue could be easily solved by a strong push from WOTC to argue that the game is a toolset and that options are options but that does not benefit them as much as the implication that you need to immerse yourself in our ecosystem.

I really do not care as long as I am left alone to run the style of games I enjoy but as soon as people start saying that I have to follow RAW and use PHB Orcs, then I am going to vehemently disagree.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Around the whole customizability thing, one of the things a lot of people like about D&D is it hasn't been as customizeable as some other gamers. There has always been that tension in the D&D fandom around wanting it to be more customizable and flexible versus wanting more restrictions around choice. 3E for example greatly expanded customization. Personally I do think the game is better when choices are meaningful and more constrained around class and race(and all elements of character creation). That doesn't mean I am anti-customization. I like a lot of different games. I just think one of the things that makes D&D work is this aspect of it (which is why I tend to play older editions now----and if I do want a more flexible version of D&D, I will usually go to 3E because of the multi-classing system and skills).

 

[Belen]

The one thing that WotC cannot guarantee and can never guarantee is that everyone is going to have the same experience at every table or that every table is right for every person. That message continues through out the hobby. When we talk about Session Zero, inherent in that is setting the ground rules for that particular table, and my session zero is going to differ from another table’s session zero. It is simply the nature of virtually any TTRPG. There will also always be people who are prickly enough to want to insist upon their way, but ultimately the goal is to grow the hobby large enough that they can find their own table that does share their views about how to play the game rather than try to bully others into playing the way they want.

There are venues for RAW, consistent game play whether it is Adventurer’s League or tournament play a la the old RPGA, and they can probably enforce it in whatever online environment Project Sigil ends up being but they’ll also find that without flexibility, there will be people who go elsewhere.

The existence of people who complain does not really change anything.

Sure, but this is ENWorld and part of this discussion here and in the other thread has been about culture.

If the dominant culture gets pushed to RAW and WOTC sets expectations that PHB races are the default and should be RAW, then there is an active push to setting default assumptions at all tables.

I can get behind guidelines or suggestions about the social contract of the game but I cannot get behind a culture that narrowly defines what D&D is in terms of stories and settings.